Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @04:10PM
from the bug-in-the-system dept.

gManZboy writes in with a troubling story about tax dollars being used for overseas call center training. "Despite President Obama's recent call for companies to 'insource' jobs sent overseas, it turns out that the federal government itself is spending millions of dollars to train foreign students for employment in some booming career fields--including working in offshore call centers that serve U.S. businesses. The program is called JEEP, which stands for Job Enabling English Proficiency. It's available to college students in the Philippines through USAID. That's the same agency that until a couple of years ago was spending millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money to train offshore IT workers in Sri Lanka. Congressman Tim Bishop (D-New York), told about the program on Tuesday, called it 'surprising and distressing.' Bishop recently introduced a bill that would make companies that outsource call centers ineligible for government contracts."

I recall my linguistics professor saying the "ax" actually is an older form of the word [wiktionary.org] that has been preserved. So it's not so much improper as much as it is antiquated.

Also, languages go through regular mutatations, this is just another one of them. I don't think "ax" is any different than "pail" vs "bucket" or "pop" vs "soda". It's just that it is associated with a poorer demographic, but that doesn't make it any less valid English.

PS- Yes, I am the kind of person that will use "thee" and "thou" if neces

I doubt persons saying "ax" instead of ask are using an older form of English or German, since most of their ancestors originally spoke an African tongue. (Sorry; just speaking truth.) They are merely mispronouncing the word, in the same way that mispronounce "po" instead of poor.

You're missing the point. The point is that language and pronunciation changes. I bet yours is imperfect too.

What's really absurd is for so many Americans with so many regional accents and dialects, from the South to Boston 'Southie', to pick on one dialect as a problem but not the others. Their priority they put on proper pronunciation is also a little hard to fathom. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that it's not the dialect that they have a problem with.

False. Where I come from "youse" and "ain't" is a common term, and the teachers punish students for using it. You made a strawman argument that only one dialect is picked upon, but that's not true. MANY dialects are labeled as "bad" in the U.S. school system.

As for WHY they want a fixed standard is so people can communicate with one another across 3000 miles. Otherwise, like Europe after the fall of Rome, the language will evolve and bec

Most black families in the US have been here longer than most white families in the US. Even if their ancestors spoke an African tongue, is it not possible that their ancestors learned English from people who were using the older form of the word?

Oh no no no no!!! You referenced "ax"! That's officially "ebonics" now. You can't question or criticize that or anything like it because that's racist... unless you're black, then you can say that all day long, in which case, please forgive me for talking down to you because I'm just a guilty white man.

This sort of honesty is rare. For the reasons that you stated.

Rare? It's pretty much all I hear these days: Subtle racism and then someone complaining if you object to it. Often they complain without anyone objecting (here two people complained). It's the new political correctness.

Language is a huge part of what makes humans human. That we can encode our thoughts and share them and store them and accumulate them so that thousands of years of learned information can be issued to a child in elementary school like it was nothing. Language is the key enabler which gives rise to all things humans accomplish... ALL THINGS.

Most of us already know this. We say things like "language is the encoding of the mind." And we know that the quality of the language a person exh

I think he's talking about 3rd and 4th generation Americans. I know many who still ain't got no good grasp ov da inglash layngwidge.

I have friends of all races, some who only came here in the last few years, I have no problem with someone wanting to live here, bring with them parts of their culture not better left behind, and integrate into our society; that's what made this country great.

What I, and many others, take issue with is that some of these people come over here and bring with them the very parts of their culture they were coming here to get away from. If you're going to come here to live your life exactly as you were living it in your home country, go back home. Immigrating to America is supposed to be about improving your life and our country; if you're not interested in doing at least one of those things, we're not interested in having you here.

My mexican, puerto-rican neighbors, korean, japanese, and indian friends and neighbors all seem to agree with the above, it's not a racist statement, it's what this country was founded on.

100 years ago, "integrate" was a codeword for "stop being Catholic." What are you using it to try to imply today?

We're not 100 years in the past, we're right here, right now. I'm trying to imply that a person choosing to be in America should abide by our laws, including immigration and tax laws.

Such as? Your couched phrasing is off-putting.

What couched phrasing? Whatever they're here to get away from, the should not bring it with them; I think that's about as specific as I can get, since everyone comes here for a different reason. For a specific example, I'll reference my indian neighbors; one I get along with very well and one with whom I do not.

I don't mind immigrants to the US, it has what has made the country so great.....however, I want them to at least sign the guest book on the way in, do it legally, and try to become a citizen.

Immigrants that do it the right way...DO try to learn the language and become part of the melting pot that is (or at least was) the USA.

I agree it should be done legally, but America was built on immigrants who didn't learn the language or blend in, many of whom were illegal (and the ancestors of those complaining). It's always been that way. Per one study I saw, by the third generation ~80% intermarry outside their ethnicity and only 3% speak their grandparents' native tongue at all (the latter is kind of sad).

I know that if I was 40 years old and moved to Poland (to pick a random country), I would learn some Polish to get by but I would be reading English websites, watching English TV and movies, etc. My kids would grow up speaking Polish, and their kids would laugh at Grandpa's funny accent and condescendingly translate.

To be frank, I think many people are uncomfortable with different cultures and change, and try to rationalize their feelings by finding problems with immigration. It's human nature, but America is great because we have overcome it and accepted all.

Have some sympathy for people who have come so far, with so little, to an alien world that speaks another language and is populated by many who hate immigrants just because they're different. Hardly a threat; they are really in need of our help and compassion (and admiration -- I doubt many people would have the guts to leave everything behind for that experience!).

I'm fine with people bringing their culture with them. I never said I wasn't and, in fact, am repeating myself whe I tell you that I am. I'm not being hypocritical at all with my statement: if you're coming here to better yourself, please, come in; if you're coming here to pretend you're still at home, please don't bother. That's not to insist that someone leave every bit of their heritage, culture, and identity behind; by all means bring it with you, it will enrich the lives of everyone you meet here. But,

That would be puerto rico, also illegally seized from Spain in the same war. But the Philippines was independent from the US since 1946. Which also means they have very strong ties with the US, having just been on the allied side in WW2.

It's a fair point to complain about the US government say training chinese or indians to some degree. Although there is a legitimate place for development aid, whatever you may call it. China and India are after all strategic competitors to the US (along with Russia, Brazil, Indonesia and the EU, even if they are only regio), but the Philippines remains very much a staunch US ally against china, a US friend (insofar as the US has any of those left in the world), and a potentially expanded market for US sales.

We need to halt this immediately...and turn those dollars around to be spent on US citizens.....there's plenty of US citizens that can't seem to speak proper English.

I can't tell you how often I hear someone want to "ax" me a question.

I won't even get into the conversation that more and more these days, you have to almost speak fucking Spanish in the US.....just to get anything done.

Don't blame the ignorant fuck who is too lazy to enunciate proper English.

Blame the ignorant fuck who proposed that someone too lazy to enunciate proper English is somehow speaking their own language, and everyone else speaking English is wrong to correct them.

And yes, ebonics is nothing more than being fucking lazy and mispronouncing half the English language in some form of guttural shorthand. Yeah, there's a language barrier there alright, but it's one that should have been slapped out of the mouths of lazy kids everywhere decades ago.

Actually, no. Politics aside, linguists look for certain things that are characteristic of a language. Just because two languages share a similar root and may even have this same words in many cases does not mean they are the same language. German and Yiddish, or Portuguese and Spanish for example. The question is when does it move from a dialect to a separate language.

Oh here we go, another dumbass AC spewing BS around. Here's where you are wrong on your facts: there are plenty of government programs that both nonresidents and noncitizens can apply for legally. Heck, I know about them because I used all of the following:

There is no way in hell that a politician is going to pay nearly a billion dollars to get into an office that won't pay out more than a couple of million in salary and perks over it's term without getting payback from somewhere else. It's as simple as that. And you know we'll never have meaningful campaign finance reform as long as the Republicrats have no meaningful competition.Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result

The Obama critque is not irrelevant. The problem with this election is that the guy against him has one goal and that is to help his corporate buddies. The GOP doesn't need to spend the time or the money on a platform committee this year because choosing Mittens makes it their sole platform plank. Romney already goes on the stump and says only what his pals want him to say (not to mention different things for different crouds.) Obama is a corporatist without a doubt, but at least he thinks about the lit

You didn't really say anything positive about Obama there. All you said is that you personally believe that he might throw a dog an extra bone. But then if Obama can capture your faith due to past policy initiatives (while ignoring things like FISA, Patriot Act extension, NDAA, etc), then should not Romney also have your faith from his rather liberal policy initiatives during his tenure in Massachusetts (while ignoring his current rhetoric)? In addition, would it not be fair to view Romney's election year p

From a platform of eliminating income tax in favor of reliance on consumption taxes, cutting public service projects, and basing economic plans on intentional ignorance, Ron Paul's just about the perfect candidate for a stereotypical evil wealthy businessman. His approach to leadership is that the Founding Fathers had everything all figured out 250 years ago, and all those major changes like the Industrial Revolution are just bothersome little things that shouldn't concern us.

If you insist on sticking a label on me, I'll go with "moderate" or "centralist". There are some liberal policies I like, and some conservative policies I like. Sometimes there are heinous acts done to our environment, and heinous acts done in the name of our environment. I have no particularly loyal affiliation.

My apologies for the long post, but Ron Paul pisses me off. From his own website: [ronpaul.com]

Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

First line of his tax platform, and we've established that he wants to get rid of the income tax, which is currently the most direct way to put the burden of social support on those who benefit most: the wealthy. If you're of the opinion that everyone should support society equally, whether or not they can afford it, then I guess removing income tax makes sense. That's not my opinion.

Excise tax is often connected to "sin tax" for good reason. The government gets to put a tax on anything it wants. The paranoid folks worry about the influence of government on our right to purchase particular things, but what actually concerns me more is the likelihood that a "fair" excise tax is applied to practically everything, so all prices rise by some amount, increasing the total cost of living. If wages also increase, then it's just inflation, and nothing changes (except we're in a worse position in the global economy). If wages don't increase, then the taxes affect the lowest-income population the most, while the middle and upper classes are unaffected.

...non-protectionist tariffs...

I don't think I've ever heard of any tariff that's not protectionist. Raising the price of an import necessarily makes outsourced manufacturing more expensive. Unfortunately, this isn't the 1800's, where America was capable of being (more or less) self-reliant. Americans want their electronics from Asia, and modern companies know this. The higher prices from the tariffs will be passed on to the consumers, which again will mostly hurt the lowest-income population. I don't think that's right.

massive cuts in spending

He defines what will be cut elsewhere [ronpaul2012.com]. Notably, he intends to close the Department of Energy (because who needs energy research anyway, when you have big energy companies working on fossil fuels?), Housing and Urban Development (which currently manages federal programs for low-income people to buy homes), and the Department of Education (because the states do such a great [slashdot.org] job [slashdot.org] already [slashdot.org]). Less specifically, some other goals are "returning responsibility for security to private property owners" which I interpret to mean cutting federal support for emergency services, and "stopping foreign aid", of which the #1 recipient is Afghanistan. Sure... once we've screwed over a country for 10 years, let's cut off support to rebuild, so we can cut back 1% of the federal budget. He also boasts about his promise to take a personal salary of only $39,000, which is a savings of almost 0.00001% from the federal budget. Then there's his spending freezes, on Medicaid, SCHIP, food stamps, family support, and child nutrition programs.

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax....

He wants to cut out 45% of income, but his vaunted $1 trillion in cuts only total about 33% of expenses. Without replacing the missing 12% of the budget, he's going to have a hard time meeting his promise to have a balanced budget in two years.

The truly wealthy don't care what the income tax rate is. Why? Because they don't have significant earned incomes. The only thing they care about is the capital gains taxes and estate taxes. The reason Romney (and Buffett, etc.) pay such ridiculously low taxes is because most of their income is counted as capital gains.

The problem with sales, excise, import taxes, etc. is that we live in a global world. Companies and rich individuals can pick and choose where to invest, where to purchase, etc. If Amer

Bishop recently introduced a bill that would make companies that outsource call centers ineligible for government contracts.

So they're saying that they're no longer going to purchase HP, Dell, or Acer PCs? Somehow I suspect that bill is just posturing, and will not amount to anything.

Or it will force them to open call centers in the US to serve US customers. I would presume that the requirement would be serving US customers onshore but doesn't bar them from serving offshore customers with offshore centers.

typical politicians. They find out they're doing something stupid, so they're going to do something stupid to make up for it. Quit paying to train the foreigners, and don't pass a new law disabling government contracts with companies that have overseas call centers, would be the correct thing to do.

I know that may not be quite what you meant, but have you ever thought how most good U.S. universities would look if you'd stop supporting all the graduate foreign students with public money? The engineering and science department rolls would be probably 80-90% empty.

Gee, I hope they succeed in bringing all of the call center work back to the United States! I would love to pay higher prices so that my countrymen can work menial jobs for 10 times the pay of their Asian counterparts (which still fails to provide a decent standard of living here), because more expensive products are good for everyday Americans already struggling to get by!

Gee, I hope they succeed in bringing all of the call center work back to the United States! I would love to pay higher prices so that my countrymen can work menial jobs for 10 times the pay of their Asian counterparts (which still fails to provide a decent standard of living here), because more expensive products are good for everyday Americans already struggling to get by!

Actually, and all sarcasm aside. you are quite right. The few dollars more that you might spend on your PC, for example, could create living wage jobs for people here in this country. We need some major adjustments to the economy, but the math is what it is and when you stop sucking dollars out of it by off-shoring your labor, things are better. Period. We saw this throughout the eighties in the Pacific Northwest. Reagan's corporate welfare policies allowed corporations to make more money shipping raw logs overseas than they could by processing them into salable products here. The result was the virtually complete collapse of the timber industry. Entire communities became ghost towns when the paper and lumber mills shut down. Same shit, different decade, only on a much bigger scale.

Those 'menial' jobs are GONE. Get it through your uneducated head. Think like a globalized citizen. With your education you could emigrate tot he Philippians and be a manager at one of these call centres, or even set one up there yourself! It's a free world after all. Or how about this, use your better education to invent a computer program that is better than a Filipina call centre girl. That could be difficult.

Sorry, but since I detect no sarcasm I have to assume you are really ignorant. You do understand that an Economy needs to be able to accommodate every level of education and desire to work in order to be an economy right?

The Political speak of the last decade or so tends not to mention how important that is. "American's don't want to work in factories" is another good line. It's great rhetoric that has been working to increase the wealth disparity gap in the US, put millions of Americans out of work, and made a select few more wealthy than they already were.

Look, I'm not going to try to teach you the fundamentals of economics and sociology. I simply don't have the time or energy to even try. I will suggest that you do some research before repeating propaganda targeting lower and middle class Americans and giving benefit to the wealthy. Spend some time reading about the economics of Rome prior to collapse. Greece is another great example and much more recent. Read some of the works by the founder of Capitalism Adam Smith, Marxx's commentary is very good as well. Both will point out the short comings and dangers of the system rather nicely.

In all societies, the majority of people are content with menial work for fair pay. There is a minority on either end. When the top owns enough to steal from everyone below them, the society is doomed. Plato's "The Republic" is an excellent reference for that aspect. And yes, the United States is a Republic and founded that way intentionally. Though it has been turning in to something completely different very quickly.

That's where US corporations and the CEOs who rule them are really short-sighted. Once enough jobs are shipped overseas, there was a definite lack of jobs for unskilled people. It's one of the big reason so many people are on long-term unemployment now.
Once too many people are in poverty because there are no available jobs in the US, the corporations profits will take a nose dive. If the average person doesn't have any money after paying for the bare basics of food and shelter, they are not going to be bu

Which is why the Government has in turn reduced their income tax, reduced taxes on things like Capital Gains, gives them grants for new buildings, gives them grants for sending work overseas. When the US Government is paying for Oil Refineries to be built while Oil companies make record profits over the last 20 years it should be obvious to people what's going on.

It's not obvious sadly, since the TV shows "entertainment" to soothe the masses and keep them uninformed.

You like the post I responded to are simply ignorant. Ignorance is not bad, it's curable. I am myself guilty of ignorance in many subjects.

Maybe you missed where I asked the OP to read Plato's "The Republic". That may not be the only place where you need education, but hell it's a start. In specific, I'll refer you to the story of the Artisan and what the job of a Republic is with them.

You see, the Politicians have everyone fooled at this point. They want everyone to believe that companies and corporat

Across the board spending cuts are supposed to take effect in January of 2013... You know who's crying about them already... The military. I can already hear the backtracking in congress about how dangerous it is to cut military spending, and I'm sure we'll have across the board cuts in 2013... for social programs.

First things first. Cut spending enough so that we can at least pay the interest on our loans and not take out any more loans. Once we get there, we can figure out how fast we want to pay off our loans and what we need to cut in order to pay them off that fast. The goal is not to get rid of our deficit by tomorrow.

It's sad that we can't discuss these important issues, learn from each other and move our country (and the world) forward. Most importantly we need to stop telling each other that narrow-mindedness and anger are acceptable or will be taken seriously.

First things first. Cut spending enough so that we can at least pay the interest on our loans and not take out any more loans.

The very nature of the loans is that they are designed to be unpayable. The Federal Reserve is the source of all money in circulation; the federal government creates bonds which the Federal Reserve buys in exchange for dollars, i.e., the Federal Reserve loans the government some money, to be paid back with interest. If the Federal Reserve is the only source of these dollars, how can the government ever pay back even the original loan? And it makes sense, as one can see from the historical chart of when A

Here's a better idea: chop the size of federal government down so it's no longer a big slush fund for social nuts on the left or military nuts on the right.

It would be great to get rid of the waste. The problem is, how do we eliminate the waste without eliminating the good and necessary things too? Unless someone comes up with a way to govern without corruption, we can't have one without the other.

I'm not saying there is nothing we can do, but it's easier said than done.

It's ironic. Recently SallieMae called to talk to me about one of my employees who's delinquent on his student loans. The caller was clearly Indian. I remarked that it hardly seems to help American students repay their loans, in general, if SallieMae itself outsources its operations to India, thus depriving a number of Americans from the opportunity to repay their loans.

Recently SallieMae called to talk to me about one of my employees who's delinquent on his student loans. The caller was clearly Indian. I remarked that it hardly seems to help American students repay their loans,

Should SallieMae move the jobs on-shore, increase its expenses, reduce its other spending, and increase the interest rates it charges to the students?

Also, if Indians don't have jobs, they don't buy American products which means fewer jobs and less income available for those students.

Finally, those students might want to work for a foreign company some day; if we don''t hire in India, they won't hire here.

They are entry level positions. The US job market's becoming more and more top heavy in the tech industry. People are having harder and harder times getting relevant experience as the foot-in-the-door positions have been moved overseas. Even worse, the same thing's started happening for more experienced positions.

In my current work environment, I've watched T1-3 jobs shuffle overseas. I'm one of the last people that was able to work my way up from an entry level position. Job listings have been demanding higher education coupled with experience, yet the latter is becoming rarer and rarer to come by. It's something that's been building for years and we're staring at a large experience gap in the industry.

Personally, were I "Commander-In-Chief" as the president is during wartime (which gives him a lot more control than that office normally has by itself), I would've said:

"Fine, don't do it then - keep outsourcing! We'll do "laissez-faire" for you since that's the "spirit of American Business" from your "point-of-view", & let you do what YOU want: However, then? Well... We'll be MORE THAN HAPPY to apply these GIGANTIC penalties for

Bishop recently introduced a bill that would make companies that outsource call centers ineligible for government contracts.

How about we make this into a law that actually keeps desirable jobs in the country? For example, why only call-center jobs? Those jobs suck and don't pay shit, anyway. How about we say "If more than 5% of your total workforce is outsourced outside the U.S., no government contracts."

If you want to save mega-bucks on salaries by hiring foreigners for 10center per hour? More power to you

Adjust tax policy to where the cost of an outsourced employee, as well as the cost of importing goods and materials for manufacturing (only if already locally available), are taxed at a rate so as to equal the cost +5% which in turn encourages usage of local resources, goods, and materials. This would also create an uptick in the demand for American manufacturing. Not to mention decrease the unemployment rate tremendously.

Remember, not everyone is suited to work in white collar environments. I would much rather have a smart blue collar guy than an unskilled white collar guy any day.

College is also another problem. Politicians seem to think unskilled labor should always go overseas, which forces people to pursue degrees that they may not want just to be safe. How is upwards of 30k in debt going to benefit someone that has a mindset for a completely different type of work? America needs blue collar work, because many Americans are blue collar. Phone support is entry level white collar, and we could use that too.

I have nothing against foreign resources being used in American companies, but lets make certain that they are the "best" man and/or woman for the job, not just the cheapest.

One last thing; Does it help America to design and engineer something and then send the plans to build it to another country that may or may not care about trade secrets? We should all know the answer to this one already.

Adjust tax policy to where the cost of an outsourced employee, as well as the cost of importing goods and materials for manufacturing (only if already locally available), are taxed at a rate so as to equal the cost +5% which in turn encourages usage of local resources, goods, and materials.

There are several drawbacks: * If we increase the cost of producing American goods, then sales of those goods will decrease. Also, the costs for other American companies will go up too, because they use those goods as inputs (e.g., if the price of steel goes up, then GM and Ford must pay more to make cars).

* If we inhibit American companies from employing foreign workers, then foreign countries will inhibit their companies from employing Americans. Many Americans are employed by foreign compa

America needs blue collar work, because many Americans are blue collar. Phone support is entry level white collar, and we could use that too.

Wrong. America needs "blue collar" work because that is how the stuff gets made. We can't all manage each other's investment portfolios or shuffle the papers in accounts receivable. At some point, some actual wealth needs to be created - tangible things whose existence enhances our lives in some way.

This is not because some people are not suited to a nice office job with air conditioning and a good view.

The whole point of USAID since inception has been to very publicly give financial aid to allies and countries with whom we want to establish stronger ties, and to less publicly give American foreign service personnel an excuse to be in a foreign country with a bunch of cash. And that's not some Cold War stuff, either. Like, right now, American military advisors and CIA operatives act in places like Afghanistan under the auspices (and budget) of the USAID, which, ironically, stands for United States Agency for International Development. It's a major foreign policy arm of the US, and if you think the government, no matter which party is in power, is going to rush to put a leash on it just because outsourcing has some feathers ruffled, you're very much mistaken.

occasionally... that is mostly right. USAID is a goodwill program to help out American 'allies', there is nothing wrong with this. In fact the implementing partners and organizations are also predominantly American. USAID employs a lot of...Americans! Highly skilled ones at that. Of course, with the economy in the sorry state it is in, even Obama is busy cutting back USAID programs to the bone.

They can keep the bloody jobs. It was pretty terrible. I wouldn't work under call center conditions again. (I was downsized in 2006 because we had to move buildings and they eventually cut a good half of the workforce, including management staff.)

Good point, it would be easier to train Indonesians to program in Java - saves teaching them a new spoken language and getting them a ticket to Jakarta:)

The entire argument is fairly pointless anyway because once you spend money overseas it goes to giving employment or other benefit to people that are not in the USA anyway - that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.Then again I'm biased because the USA under Reagan helped pay for my engineering degree in Australia.

This is what happens when you don't fully test your legislation before rolling it out to production. At least run it in a virtual world first. And put in a sunset clause so it can easily be shut down if it doesn't have the desired effect in the real world.